Theistic Evolution - My Personal Problem with it

[essentialsaltes]

I guess I should have been more specific. My primary intention was questioning the notion of a compatibility between the theory of evolution and a literal Genesis account.

Right. Good. They are not compatible, given a reasonable definition of 'literal'.

 

[spinner981]

Right. Good. They are not compatible, given a reasonable definition of 'literal'.

Ok then, I thought so.

 

[Super Hotdog Salesman]

So you believe in the account of Jesus Christ in the Bible because you have faith that it is true? Most historians accept Jesus as a real historical figure, but very few believe He actually rose from the dead. To many that account is false because it conflicts with their worldviews: that the supernatural doesn't exist. Isn't it then the same thing to believe in other books of the Bible based off of faith, even if they conflict with other worldviews?

I believe the Bible tells us a bunch of things about Christ that are true, yes. It says them, I see them, my faith responds to them. It is true that many people who don't have faith in Christ do not believe the parts about him rising from the dead. I do, because I do have faith. In fact, I believe all the books of the Bible are true. I think Genesis is true. I do not think it's true history, but I don't think it's meant to communicate history any more than The Chronicles of Narnia are about history. Myths aren't about history. Gospel accounts are a different genre, and are interpreted differently.

It seems like you haven't really come across this point of view before, but it's actually quite common. Seriously, check out Biologos and browse their forums.

 

[spinner981]

I believe the Bible tells us a bunch of things about Christ that are true, yes. It says them, I see them, my faith responds to them. It is true that many people who don't have faith in Christ do not believe the parts about him rising from the dead. I do, because I do have faith. In fact, I believe all the books of the Bible are true. I think Genesis is true. I do not think it's true history, but I don't think it's meant to communicate history any more than The Chronicles of Narnia are about history. Myths aren't about history. Gospel accounts are a different genre, and are interpreted differently.

It seems like you haven't really come across this point of view before, but it's actually quite common. Seriously, check out Biologos and browse their forums.

I've come across it. Some people interpret different parts of the Bible to be figurative or literal compared to me. I'm just saying, that if you believe in the literal historical reading of the gospel accounts, regardless of what others say about them when claiming that they can't be true (ie: because miracles don't exist, because God doesn't exist, etc.), isn't it the same kind of thing for others to have faith in the literal historical reading of other books of the Bible, such as Genesis?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You haven't really said anything so far apart from "You're wrong." so I see no reason to just take your word for it without some sort of explanation.

That is not true. I offered to link you some introductory videos, you did not take me up on my offer. I gave you a link to biologos a Christian group. It appears that you have not used that link. If you want to learn you need to do most of the work yourself. So far you are so obviously wrong that I have done more than enough.

I find it hard to believe that it is impossible to consider the possibility of anything happening in the past without resorting to science.

How else are you going to know what is real? Your creation myth is no better than the countless other creation myths out there. You need an unbiased way to judge an idea and that is done with the scientific method.

I guess I should have been more specific. My primary intention was questioning the notion of a compatibility between the theory of evolution and a literal Genesis account.

There is none. Genesis was shown to be wrong before the theory of evolution came out. Early geologists went looking for confirmation of the Flood of Noah and they found that it never happened. Again, you would need to educate yourself a bit to appreciate this fact. I can't teach you over the computer. I can only lead you to sites that can help you to learn. And then Darwin came along and showed that the Garden of Eden was not real either.

If you believe in things that conflict with the Genesis account; ie: the theory of evolution? Correct?

I accept the theory of evolution because we can show that there is massive evidence for it and there is no reliable evidence for the Genesis account.

 

[spinner981]

That is not true. I offered to link you some introductory videos, you did not take me up on my offer. I gave you a link to biologos a Christian group. It appears that you have not used that link. If you want to learn you need to do most of the work yourself. So far you are so obviously wrong that I have done more than enough.

Why should I feel obligated to follow every link or watch every video? Am I supposed to just do that until I stop believing what I believe, and am unable to be responded to until then? Do you only talk to others who believe in evolution, and just ignore people who don't, linking various websites telling them to 'get educated'?

How else are you going to know what is real? Your creation myth is no better than the countless other creation myths out there. You need an unbiased way to judge an idea and that is done with the scientific method.

The scientific method is a tool, and is not biased. The people who use the scientific method are biased, as all people are biased. The idea that just because somebody claims to use the scientific method, that therefore any conclusion they come to is unbiased and definitely true, is a bit naive.

There is none. Genesis was shown to be wrong before the theory of evolution came out. Early geologists went looking for confirmation of the Flood of Noah and they found that it never happened. Again, you would need to educate yourself a bit to appreciate this fact. I can't teach you over the computer. I can only lead you to sites that can help you to learn. And then Darwin came along and showed that the Garden of Eden was not real either.

So if I am to go out and watch these videos and study these links, and come back still believing in creationism, then what? Do you have so much faith in naturalism that the theoretical idea of it being wrong is non-existent in your mind? So you refuse to discuss the subject with people who don't claim to believe the same exact thing?

I accept the theory of evolution because we can show that there is massive evidence for it and there is no reliable evidence for the Genesis account.

Yes, that is a lot of people's 'reason' for it; said reason being "There is a lot of evidence for it." and nobody ever really goes into much more detail than that.

 

[Gene2memE]

Spinner,

for the sake of clarity, maybe you could spell out exactly what it is you believe regarding the Genesis account, and/or its compatibility with the evidence from cosmology, geology and biology about the history of the earth and life on it?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Ok then, I thought so.

Then the question becomes... which of the two accounts is in the best accordance with the evidence?

Given your initial question: if animals were created after fruit trees, then we should be able to locate geological strata that are older than any animal, but that still contain fruit trees. This is not the case.

 

[spinner981]

Then the question becomes... which of the two accounts is in the best accordance with the evidence?

Given your initial question: if animals were created after fruit trees, then we should be able to locate geological strata that are older than any animal, but that still contain fruit trees. This is not the case.

Well, according to a literal reading of the Bible, they were actually only created mere days apart. I don't see why this matters though, as the question of the thread was already answered.

Spinner,

for the sake of clarity, maybe you could spell out exactly what it is you believe regarding the Genesis account, and/or its compatibility with the evidence from cosmology, geology and biology about the history of the earth and life on it?

I believe in a literal historical reading of it.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Well, according to a literal reading of the Bible, they were actually only created mere days apart.

But the record of the fossils shows that there were animals in the sea hundreds of millions of years before there were fruit trees. Not a few days after the fruit trees.

 

[spinner981]

But the record of the fossils shows that there were animals in the sea hundreds of millions of years before there were fruit trees. Not a few days after the fruit trees.

Oh, I don't believe in hundreds of millions of years.

 

[Super Hotdog Salesman]

I've come across it. Some people interpret different parts of the Bible to be figurative or literal compared to me. I'm just saying, that if you believe in the literal historical reading of the gospel accounts, regardless of what others say about them when claiming that they can't be true (ie: because miracles don't exist, because God doesn't exist, etc.), isn't it the same kind of thing for others to have faith in the literal historical reading of other books of the Bible, such as Genesis?

No, I don't think having faith in Christ is the same as having faith in a particular interpretation of Genesis. I have no faith in a particular interpretation of Genesis; I come to conclusions about interpreting it based on facts from Biblical scholarship and science. The resurrection of Christ has not been falsified by Biblical scholarship and science the same way that a Young Earth interpretation of Genesis has. Many people certainly do claim faith in a particular interpretation of Genesis the same way they have faith in Christ, but I do not, and I find the concept of faith in the face of clear evidence sounds pretty irresponsible.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Oh, I don't believe in hundreds of millions of years.

Well, according to the biblical account, we should find fossil layers with fruit trees that are older than ('beneath') fossil layers with fish. Instead, we find the opposite.

 

[spinner981]

No, I don't think having faith in Christ is the same as having faith in a particular interpretation of Genesis. I have no faith in a particular interpretation of Genesis; I come to conclusions about interpreting it based on facts from Biblical scholarship and science. The resurrection of Christ has not been falsified by Biblical scholarship and science the same way that a Young Earth interpretation of Genesis has. Many people certainly do claim faith in a particular interpretation of Genesis the same way they have faith in Christ, but I do not, and I find the concept of faith in the face of clear evidence sounds pretty irresponsible.

There is also clear evidence that humans can't raise from the dead three days later, or turn a handful of fish and loaves into enough to feed a few thousand people with multiple baskets to spare, or walk on the surface water. A lot of people find it pretty irresponsible to believe such things actually happened as well.

 

[spinner981]

Well, according to the biblical account, we should find fossil layers with fruit trees that are older than ('beneath') fossil layers with fish. Instead, we find the opposite.

Why would we expect to find them beneath the fish, according to the Bible?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Why would we expect to find them beneath the fish, according to the Bible?

Well, I don't know that the bible says anything in particular about stratigraphy, but it's generally recognized that geological formations are laid down sequentially, so that (all things being equal) layers that are deeper are older. The bible does provide one timeline for the appearance of plants, the sun, and fish, and so on, and the geological record provides another timeline. They do not agree in order. Or in timing, if you stick to literal days.

 

[spinner981]

Well, I don't know that the bible says anything in particular about stratigraphy, but it's generally recognized that geological formations are laid down sequentially, so that (all things being equal) layers that are deeper are older. The bible does provide one timeline for the appearance of plants, the sun, and fish, and so on, and the geological record provides another timeline. They do not agree in order. Or in timing, if you stick to literal days.

Yes, but the amount of time between the appearance of fruit trees and the appearance of fish is one day according to Genesis. Probably not long enough to form a geological strata.

 

[Super Hotdog Salesman]

There is also clear evidence that humans can't raise from the dead three days later, or turn a handful of fish and loaves into enough to feed a few thousand people with multiple baskets to spare, or walk on the surface water. A lot of people find it pretty irresponsible to believe such things actually happened as well.

There is a difference between specific and general evidence. People may not usually rise from the dead, but that doesn't prove a particular person did not. If I had a time machine and went back to see Jesus not rising from the dead, I would definitely stop being a Christian, because that would be specific evidence to the contrary. We do have a ton of scientific evidence about the age of our specific Earth, and it would be irresponsible for me to ignore it or the Biblical scholarship on Genesis.

 

[Gene2memE]

I believe in a literal historical reading of it.

So, does that preclude a 4.54 billion year earth and biological diversity via evolution?

 

[spinner981]

There is a difference between specific and general evidence. People may not usually rise from the dead, but that doesn't prove a particular person did not. If I had a time machine and went back to see Jesus not rising from the dead, I would definitely stop being a Christian, because that would be specific evidence to the contrary. We do have a ton of scientific evidence about the age of our specific Earth, and it would be irresponsible for me to ignore it or the Biblical scholarship on Genesis.

But the problem is the possibility of miracles and the supernatural. Many people don't believe in it, and believe evidence points to pure naturalism.

Just curious, but what do you consider the single most convincing argument for an old earth?

So, does that preclude a 4.54 billion year earth and biological diversity via evolution?

Depends on how much of the theory of evolution you are talking about.